These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
23. Contrast media induced ventricular fibrillation during coronary angiography in dogs. Hayakawa K; Yamashita K; Ishii Y Acta Radiol; 1988; 29(3):371-3. PubMed ID: 2968112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy: experimental and clinical observations with an emphasis on the role of osmolality. Rudnick MR; Goldfarb S Rev Cardiovasc Med; 2003; 4 Suppl 5():S28-33. PubMed ID: 14668707 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Iodinated contrast media and contrast-induced nephropathy: is there a preferred cost-effective agent? Sharma SK J Invasive Cardiol; 2008 May; 20(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 18460711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The safety and cost-effectiveness of low osmolar contrast media. Benness GT Med J Aust; 1991 Nov; 155(9):646-8. PubMed ID: 1943970 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Selective use of radiographic low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s. Ellis JH; Cohan RH; Sonnad SS; Cohan NS Radiology; 1996 Aug; 200(2):297-311. PubMed ID: 8685315 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. A case for nonionic contrast media--despite the high cost. Lieberman EB; Bashore TM J Crit Illn; 1992 Dec; 7(12):1853-4, 1860. PubMed ID: 10148097 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The adoption of low-osmolar contrast agents in the United States: historical analysis of health policy and clinical practice. Wilmot A; Mehta N; Jha S AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Nov; 199(5):1049-53. PubMed ID: 23096178 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cost-effectiveness and safety of selective use of low-osmolality contrast media. Michalson A; Franken EA; Smith W Acad Radiol; 1994 Sep; 1(1):59-62. PubMed ID: 9419466 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparative safety of high-osmolality and low-osmolality radiographic contrast agents. Report of a multidisciplinary working group. Lawrence V; Matthai W; Hartmaier S Invest Radiol; 1992 Jan; 27(1):2-28. PubMed ID: 1733876 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Clinical and economic factors in the selection of low-osmolality contrast media. Matthai WH Pharmacoeconomics; 1994 Mar; 5(3):188-97. PubMed ID: 10146894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Choice of contrast in left main coronary disease. Kussmaul WG Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn; 1998 May; 44(1):102. PubMed ID: 9600538 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Low-versus high-osmolality contrast media for intravenous use: a health care luxury or necessity? Powe NR Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):21-2. PubMed ID: 1549674 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Coronary angiography: a decade of advances. Higgins CB Am J Cardiol; 1988 Dec; 62(18):7K-10K. PubMed ID: 3057858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Recommended precautions when using low-osmolality or nonionic contrast agents with vasodilators. Zagoria RJ; D'Souza VJ; Baker AL Invest Radiol; 1987 Jun; 22(6):513-4. PubMed ID: 3623855 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. High costs of low-osmolality contrast media. Luker GD; McAlister WH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):732. PubMed ID: 7645501 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The use of low osmolality contrast agents. Hobbs BB Can Assoc Radiol J; 1986 Jun; 37(2):67-8. PubMed ID: 2941433 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]